The answer to all of these 'miles are miles' discrepancies is as obvious as the plot of B5A. Characters in Middle Earth make use of 'worm holes,' which, for those of you that don't know, are 'shortcuts through spacetime.'

This is one of the more brilliant jokes I've seen in awhile.

Never let it be said that nothing good ever came out of these movies, for we have the worm hole joke.

The answer to all of these 'miles are miles' discrepancies is as obvious as the plot of B5A. Characters in Middle Earth make use of 'worm holes,' which, for those of you that don't know, are 'shortcuts through spacetime.'

For all of you haters out there, PJ is just being true to both Tolkien's and Einstein's works.

More likely the Spacing Guild and CHOAM, needing to protect the supply of melange on Middle-earth, has sent the Reverend Mother Nerwen Galadriel to promote the Bene Gesserit's Missionaria Protectiva and look for likely candidates for their breeding program, particularly males of the Numenorean race.

Having seen the movie, I experienced feelings very similar to what I have found in this thread. I really enjoyed reading Downers' reviews and notes and do not want to repeat them as my own impressions are pretty much the same.

I went to see the movie for two reasons. Firstly, I wanted to look at the landscapes of Middle Earth one last time. Secondly, I was curious how Peter Jackson was going to sort out the peculiarities of the story line in order to reach the beginning of his own LoTR exactly where it started.

I was indeed quite satisfied with the settings and, on the other hand, was not disappointed by the content as my expectations were pretty low. I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that Jackson avoided showing another epic battle in Dol Gudur (though there was one in the book); I was also quite surprised that both Tauriel and Radagast survived. We have not obtained an idea of how Thrain's map came to Gandalf, neither we have learnt much about Saruman's corruption.

Overall, my biggest question is why Jackson needed altering the original storyline ceaselessly? Viggo Mortensen, I believe, highlighted the key point. Jackson proved to be a messy director. He hadn't had a clear idea of what he was going for at the start of the shooting. Or, may be, the scale of both trilogies overwhelmed his ability to master consistent plans. There is nothing wrong with such attitude in general. As we all know, in the case of Apocalypse Now Francis Ford Coppola had a very vogue idea of the movie he was directing even after the shooting had ended; he basically worked it out only in the process of cutting. However, Coppola was creating a narrative from the scratch  he was not attempting to screen a piece of literature that had by that time obtained a status of classics for both the quality of story telling and the way the story was interwoven with the imaginary universe of Tolkien's myth. To achieve this, one needs to be extremely tidy with the ends and means.

Well, I am not writing off a chance that a brilliant director can get away with a radical alteration of a narrative, even of a classical one. Apart from the Benedictine Sherlock S.-S. Holmes, I dare mention Le Notti Bianche by Luchino Visconty and Hakuchi by Akira Kurosawa, both based on the novels by Dostoevsky (a writer on par with Dickens, I believe, and a dedicated admirer of the later). This, nonetheless, requires deep knowledge of Tolkien's universe in order to keep the story faithful to the context  unless a director goes for a universe of his own (which doesn't seem realistic, taking the scale of the task into account). In any case such an egg-dance is possible for one who can clearly see the purpose of the undertaking, the way to achieve it, and the boundaries that must not be violated  from the very beginning to the very end.

Having said that, I am not going to claim that Peter Jackson totally lacks talent or, in particular, imagination. It is rather vision that is missing. Without the big picture, imagination tends to led the narrative astray: one alteration for the sake of a moment that would look pretty on screen leads to characters changing their characters and roles in the story; and, in the end, the logic of the whole is gravely compromised.

I wonder how it all would work for a novice who watches all six movies in chronological order. Is LoTR trilogy going to be of any interest to such a viewer or would it rather seem predictable and unclear at the same time?

Well I got around to seeing it today. My basic thoughts could be summed up thusly:

First half? Not bad.
Second half? Not good.

I welcomed a somewhat greater focus on Bilbo and I thought that the scenes of tension under the Mountain were decent. I also liked Smaug's attack on Lake-town.

I was less impressed with the forced "drama" regarding Thranduil, Legolas and "Tauriel." Similarly, while it's completely realistic for Bard to be concerned for his film-children, they weren't hugely necessary. The ongoing Kķli romance was still unwelcome. I was also unimpressed by the deaths of Fķli and Kķli.

The White Council's arrival at Dol Guldur was all right, but I felt like Gandalf should have been more involved. Incidentally, I saw this with my father and he didn't realise that the "ghosts" they fought were meant to be the Nazgūl. I don't understand why they weren't cloaked or at least looked like their spectral forms from when Frodo is wearing the Ring in "Fellowship." Galadriel's confrontation with Sauron was arguably impressive but didn't really make sense. Sauron banging on about Angmar seemed off. I know in the book the Council believed that Sauron's ambition was to retake the North, but I'm fairly sure that wasn't actually his plan.

I also enjoyed the failed efforts at parley between the Men and Elves and the Dwarves. My biggest issue with all of this was the use of the Alfrid character, whose presence was completely unnecessary and in my opinion added nothing to the film besides an irritating distraction.

As for the battle itself I had two main issues. The first was that it was simply too long, and as others have stated focused too much on the individual acrobatics of certain heroic characters rather than the actual military conflict: there was no concern for the lot of the common soldier.

My other issue was that the orc armies were too bizarre. There were too many CGI trolls particularly, with different silly weapons. It looked like the filmmakers had gone the wrong way and taken their cues from the Harry Potter films. I don't mind the Olog-hai designs used in "The Return of the King" but I would actually have preferred if there weren't trolls at all. I thought it was more interesting and more confronting to just see human-sized soldiers fighting. Similarly, the orc soldiers came across as far too burly and formidable, yet very easily killed. Once again, it's odd that these armies were far more elite-looking than the armies of Mordor in "The Return of the King."

The events on Ravenhill and particularly the battles with Azog and Bolg were too long and I grew very weary with them. I did enjoy Bilbo's return to Bag End, but I felt like the film ended anticlimactically by segueing into "Fellowship" rather than featuring Gandalf and Balin's visit to Bag End.

Oh, one other thing: Dįin. Dįin's my favourite Dwarf, and what I like about his depiction in the Appendices is that he comes across as a Dwarf of greater wisdom and dignity than some of his kin. It's just a personal thing, but I felt it was a bit of a shame that they didn't take that angle here, because while Billy Connolly did in my opinion depict a Dwarf of honour and prowess, all the swearing and jokes missed a trick in portraying a Dwarf in a similar position to Thorin, but who has made different choices.

All in all a mixed bag. I felt like if it had built on what I saw as the relative strength of the first half it would have been a better film. That being said, I think a good deal of that is because I've become desensitized to a lot of the changes to the story.

__________________
"Since the evening of that day we have journeyed from the shadow of Tol Brandir."
"On foot?" cried Éomer.

Having said that, I am not going to claim that Peter Jackson totally lacks talent or, in particular, imagination. It is rather vision that is missing. Without the big picture, imagination tends to led the narrative astray: one alteration for the sake of a moment that would look pretty on screen leads to characters changing their characters and roles in the story; and, in the end, the logic of the whole is gravely compromised.

I'd agree with you, Sarumian, in that PJ definitely does not lack imagination or talent, but just seemingly can't see the big picture over a bunch of cool scenes. Tauriel's bow cut out of her hand by Thranduil - cool (I guess), but how do we get the characters to that scene? Orcs showing up by surprise using the Nameless creatures (Wereworms) - cool (I guess), but why aren't they used later in the LotR trilogy (beyond the issues I raised previously, though these worms might explain how Osgiliath's sewage system goes under the Anduin).

And so on.

__________________

There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.

An odd element which comes to mind in addition to the weird Trolls are the weird cavalry mounts: Dįin's boar and Thorin and co's rams (taken straight from World of Warcraft more or less).

We know in the books that the Dwarves weren't fond of animals in general and only used things like ponies/horses for transportation: they don't seem to have ever used cavalry in battle, for instance, and they didn't keep pets.

One thing I disliked about these mounts was that they were too overtly "fantastical" in the sense that they neglect the element of realism that underlines all this fantasy in the books. Orcs rode wolves, but that was a very unnatural thing. I disliked Thranduil's elk-ish mount and Radagast's rabbit sled for the same reason. Just put them on horses. If this was one of their films of The Lord of the Rings, I think they would have been on horses.

In any event, it didn't gel with elements like Thorin's musing over the acorn of Beorn which he was shown by Bilbo: the Dwarves are meant to be disconnected from the natural world, growing things and so forth, so it felt inconsistent to me that they were magically able to produce strange animals over which they had a great deal of control. Maybe it was meant to be emblematic of Thorin's change of heart that suddenly he was a friend to bird and beast but riding goats? Not in Middle-earth, I don't think. Leave it to the imitators.

Speaking of animals and transportation as well, what's happening with all these armies marching around Wilderland in full gear even when miles from the battle without any visible supply train? The Orcs of Gundabad must have had snacks concealed in those huge metal fan blades on the backs of their helmets. Note that in the book it's mentioned that the Dwarves of the Iron Hills did march in full gear while carrying large packs of supplies on their backs.

__________________
"Since the evening of that day we have journeyed from the shadow of Tol Brandir."
"On foot?" cried Éomer.

it felt inconsistent to me that they were magically able to produce strange animals over which they had a great deal of control. Maybe it was meant to be emblematic of Thorin's change of heart that suddenly he was a friend to bird and beast but riding goats? Not in Middle-earth, I don't think. Leave it to the imitators.

I think you are giving them too much credit. I think it was just meant to be "kewl!"

Quote:

Speaking of animals and transportation as well, what's happening with all these armies marching around Wilderland in full gear even when miles from the battle without any visible supply train? The Orcs of Gundabad must have had snacks concealed in those huge metal fan blades on the backs of their helmets. Note that in the book it's mentioned that the Dwarves of the Iron Hills did march in full gear while carrying large packs of supplies on their backs.

You forget that in this version of Middle earth, Gundabad and Dul Guldur are both about 5-10 miles away from Erebor.

Well, immediately after watching BoFA I wrote a review and toddled off to the 'Downs to post it. But, alas, the 'Downs was not there.
So here you go, if anyone still even remembers the movie at this point!

Well, I finally saw it. I wasn't in any hurry. But, to be honest, it wasn't as bad as I expected. Not nearly as bad as the second film. It certainly wasn't good -
too much over-the-top garbage and padding and sheer nonsense for that - but there were actually moments I enjoyed. Perhaps it could be edited down into something decent.

Maybe I was able to enjoy those moments because PJ can no longer offend me with his stupid roadrunner-cartoon slapstick. I've come to expect it and
laugh at the absurdity. I actually got a good chuckle out of Thrandy's party elk with orcs dangling from his antlers. It's so terrible it's funny, if one can keep
from getting angry at how disrespectful PJ is of Tolkien.

So, the low points:

- I'll start with the worst, probably the worst moment from all six of PJ's Tolkien-inspired romps: the moment when the Hobbit became Dune. I was waiting for someone to
announce that Bilbo was the Kwisatz Haderach. They were only in one shot - if only those worms could have been left on the cutting room floor!

- Electric!Galadriel and Possessed!Thorin. Apparently PJ was so overwhelmed by the positive response to the former in LoTR, he just had to bring her back. And how does it make
sense for her to be able to banish Sauron completely on her own?
As for Thorin, as others have mentioned, it removes all complexity from his character. But hey, I guess it was more important to have a "ring" and a "Gollum". Why mess with a successful
formula, amirite?
There's a pattern of PJ not trusting actors to convey changes of mood without digitally altered voices, it seems.

- Most of the titular battle, especially the bit with Leggy and Bolg on the bridge. I was under the impression, briefly, that Bolg and Tauriel died when she kicked them over the cliff. I even said
"good way to take him out!" - and then we're treated 20 minutes of aging Orlando (can he really be only two years older than I am? He looks ROUGH) hopping around on rocks suspended in midair
and so on.

And the elves jumping over the dwarves' shield wall, as you do.

The presence of trolls bigger than the ones in LoTR, because, uh, why not?

The fact that the women in Laketown decide to join the fight (which I liked) but you never actually see them fighting.

The bit where Azog jumps out of the ice. This was my conversation with Mac:
*Thorin steps off the ice, Azog falls in* Me: "That was actually pretty cool" Mac: "Yeah, something new for a change."
*Thorin stands there* Me: "But I bet he pops out and drags him in." Mac: "I hope not, that would be terrible."
*Azog floating under the ice* Me: "Called it" Mac: "Please, no..."
*Thorin follows him* Me: "Oberyn Martell all over again!"
*Azog's eyes pop open* Both: *groan*

Not to mention the presence of Azog at all, but that's an old gripe.

- That stupid unibrow lakeman. He's not funny. He's not interesting. He's a predictable, boring, annoying, stereotyped excuse for a character and he ruins every scene he's in.

The high points:

- Smaug attacking Laketown. Although I was annoyed by the way the thrush was left out (which is very important to the plot!), this scene did look suitably scary and impressive.

- The costumes of the dwarves, orcs and lakemen (the elves were a bit too "Elder Scrolls Altmer" for my liking). I also like the look of Dale.

- Thorin and Kili. Hey, I have no objection to a little eye candy. Mac complained about Thorin running to battle without armor, with his shirt unbuttoned no less. I didn't.

- Bilbo giving the Arkenstone to Bard. It was actually touching, as it should be.

- Thorin's death scene, same reasons. Although for some reason the Rankin-Bass version is replaying in my mind now.

- Bilbo returning to the Shire. Lobelia's spoons, and the transition to LoTR. It actually left me with a smile on my face. I also liked Billy Boyd's song during the credits.

Overall, there is one thing I think we can all celebrate about this film: it should mark the end of the Peter Jackson Tolkienesque Franchise. Now, perhaps, the Tolkien fandom will go back to being about Tolkien. Images of elves on surfboards will fade, and the tides of Time will sweep them away.

__________________

The skies of this world were always meant to have dragons. When they are not there, humans miss them.

It's fresh in my mind because we watched it again about two weeks ago. I had a bad time with this film. I wanted to disengage and just enjoy it like the others, but I couldn't. It's partly my fault as even when I was a child, I found The Hobbit a disappointing tale once Smaug was done away with, and my only interest even then was in seeing that Bilbo got home again. So I was never going to find it that exciting. And add to this having a small boy who has watched the other two films so often, I feel like they're etched on my eyelids. Watching things over and over again, unless they are Guardians of the Galaxy, tends to make you a bit bored with them.

Anyway, I had a huge urge in the cinema to yell "War Pigs!" when the Big Yin rocked up. And then to yell "Hey, am I watching Tremors?!" when the orcses came out of the ground screw thingummies. And, more miserably, "Oh hurry up" during Thorin's final battle. No, it wasn't doing it for me.

But I did enjoy the scene at Dol Guldur; it had Christopher Lee, how could I not enjoy this? And Bilbo was fabulous, especially in that last 5-10 minutes, that was wonderful. Gandalf and Radagast were good. And also Balin and Bard. Thranduil is utterly fantastic - I have a keen liking of camp. Give me a film with Smaug, Saruman and Bilbo in it, fan fic or not, I would enjoy that.

I suppose I am generally grumpy about this last film because I've seen it all too often, but I put on a brave face with the last film and make to love it for the little fella's sake. Even though it's really not cool that his namesake is the butt of the jokes.

For some reason, my computer connection to the Barrow Downs failed several months ago and has only now (in early May, 2015) magically resurrected itself. Since I saw this dreadful film at the theater back in December of 2014, I have forgotten most of what I disliked about it, which leaves me with hardly anything left to say, except that I liked the fact that it eventually ended. Still, I had begun several years ago to do a series of poems lampooning the Elf-Chick / Young Elf Lord fan-fiction romance thing but I had to wait for the third film in order to complete the cycle. Of course, along the way, the name of the elf-chick character changed, as did the identity of the actress chosen to portray her. Then, too, the immortal Young Elf Lord character had to step aside and watch the elf-chick fall for a doomed dwarf instead  from mediocre ménage ą deux to moronic ménage ą trois, so to speak.

Anyway, now that I have a restored connection to the Barrow Downs discussion forum, I can try to wrap up this guerrilla lampooning in verse, especially since it had no effect on the producers and director of such trash. To refresh my memory, I read through the many comments by other posters and settled on the following two, which seemed appropriate for my purposes:

Quote:

Tauriel and Kili's romance was made very shoddily and unrealistically, and the whole Hey I just met you and this is crazy drama seems like something that could only happen to, or be taken seriously by, indiscriminate teenagers. Then again they seem to be the target audience.  Aganzir

and

Quote:

Meanwhile, over at ToRn, they are high-fiving each other joyously with happy Hobbit erections, fluffed, as it were, with Jacksonian enthusiasm.  Morthoron

So with the fan-boy erections and the indiscriminate teenage mall-maiden demographic in mind, I remembered from the second film of this interminable trilogy how the dwarf Kili had challenged the Elf-Chick Security Guard to look in his trousers where she might find "something." To which she glibly retorted, "or nothing." So, as I sat through the third film, I waited to find out whether Itaril/Tauriel would ever look in the dwarf Kili's trousers. If so, I wondered, would she find anything, something, or nothing there? In other words, did the smutty innuendo in the previous film actually have a purpose in setting up the real cause of the Elf-Chick Security Guard's "regret" and "pain" at the dwarf Kili's unconsummated passing? I mean, would she feel terribly bad that she had missed out on her one "big" chance or would she feel cheap and stupid for imagining satisfaction from anything that insignificant? I mean, even a realy stupid plot premise ought to have some logical kind of development to conclusion.

But no such luck. The film answered none of these pressing questions, and -- to add insult to injury -- once he no longer had the dwarf for romantic competition -- the Young Elf Lord simply dumped the lower-class Elf Chick and went off to look for "a ranger named 'Strider'" at the behest of his father, the Evish King Thranduil. Strider, of course, as we know from Tolkien's Appendices, had barely reached the age of ten at that time (2941) and would not aquire the nickname "Strider" from the local inhabitants at Bree for another seventy-seven years (3018). Then, too, as we know from Tolkien's "Council of Elrond" in the Fellowship of the Ring, Legolas only shows up as a messenger from his father to report the fact of Gollum's escape from the Elves' custody. So much for Peter Jackson's ham-handed attempt to link The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings.

With the above in mind, then, I'll try to wrap up the Elf Chick Security Guard Cycle with:

Unrequited Elf/Dwarf Libido

How did this interspecies film romance
Have anything amounting to a chance
If he, the dwarf, had nothing in his shorts
And she, the elf, knew only glib retorts?

We know that elves and men can mate, it's true,
Because Professor Tolkien said they do.
But how do elves and dwarves refute the rule
That horses crossed with donkeys make a mule?

Or does this tacky, tawdry, tame affair
Appeal (with not a hint of savoir faire)
To boys in bed, both hands beneath the sheets,
And girls who've yet to grow a pair of teats?

And what of that young elf lord -- You-Know-Him --
Whose face emotes expressions fell and grim
Who left the elf-chick in his dad's employ
To go in search of one ten-year-old boy.

Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," copyright 2015

__________________
"If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." -- Tweedledee

Hey everyone! I am happy that the forum is back, and since it was all gone for so long, I was going to link up a podcast I and my brother run, and one where in December 2014, we dedicated three episodes discussing our "Hobbit Trilogy" experiences. I'd rather love it if you could maybe listen to that to get a glimpse of what my feelings to the films are and were -- and some experiences I, my brother, and our cousin had during these "turbulent times" from 2012 to 2014. Needless to say, we did not like the films... but felt that they were so utterly bizarre, we were morbidly excited seeing how they would turn out.

Hey everyone! I am happy that the forum is back, and since it was all gone for so long, I was going to link up a podcast I and my brother run, and one where in December 2014, we dedicated three episodes discussing our "Hobbit Trilogy" experiences. I'd rather love it if you could maybe listen to that to get a glimpse of what my feelings to the films are and were -- and some experiences I, my brother, and our cousin had during these "turbulent times" from 2012 to 2014. Needless to say, we did not like the films... but felt that they were so utterly bizarre, we were morbidly excited seeing how they would turn out.

Hi Phil, I'll definitely check these out when I next get a chance. I watched your commentaries on the first two films and they definitely amused - your exaggerated impersonation of Ian McKellen saying "Saurrrron! Rrrringwrrrrraiths!" has become a kind of personal joke of mine... I may have stolen it for use in my own conversations about the films. I think at the end of the first commentary you said something about how anyone who watched the commentary should email you to prove he/she had watched it (I forget what the password was) and I was going to, but I realised I wasn't sure of your email address (beyond the one mentioned in the commentaries which I got the impression you were going to make but I wasn't sure if you actually did make it).

By the way it was a shame about that notice on the YouTube channel regarding the audiobook LotR but I'm glad it has nonetheless survived, I was listening to some later chapters recently and really enjoyed your reading of "Durin's Folk" in particular.

__________________
"Since the evening of that day we have journeyed from the shadow of Tol Brandir."
"On foot?" cried Éomer.

Zigūr, wow thanks so much for that! I'm just proud someone of your strong opinion (your blog is so fun to read!) actually is willing to take the time to listen to us talk on our podcast.

Thanks Phil. I'll be lining up your podcast to listen to ASAP. I meant to listen last night in fact but got a bit distracted.

On another note just now I made the mistake of visiting a large, popular "Tolkien forum" that shall go unnamed and one thing struck me in particular: the recurring sentiment of "wait for the Extended Edition."

At the end of the day, isn't the Extended Edition just the Theatrical Edition with a bit more padding shoved in? At least, that's what the EEs of "The Lord of the Rings" felt like to me - points of interest that hadn't made it to the cinema, but ultimately nothing terribly significant. Everything I know about the Extended Edition of the first two "Hobbit" films has seemed to be the same (Dwarves inexplicably washing in the fountain at Rivendell and other pointless vulgarisms).

I think if the "The Battle of THE Five Armies" Extended Edition ends up having tonnes of additional concluding content like Thorin's funeral, the restoration of Dale, the coronation of Dįin, etc, etc, it doesn't make the Extended Edition a more "valid" version of the film, it'll just make the Theatrical Cut seem even more wishy washy and incomplete, and the entire project (in my view) come across as more badly compromised.

I realise something like Blade Runner is an example generally speaking of a situation in which the "Director's Cut" is considered to improve upon the original, but it seems to me that that derived from drastically overhauling the manner in which the narrative was presented, rather than just jamming in a bunch of extra footage which the faceless men at Warner Bros. didn't think was necessary to make back their dough in the winter holiday market last year.

__________________
"Since the evening of that day we have journeyed from the shadow of Tol Brandir."
"On foot?" cried Éomer.

Yeah, the last thing Jackson's Hobbit films need is Extended Editions. If anything, they should come out with Contracted Editions.

I'll go somewhat further and suggest that Peter Jackson's Hobbit films could have used an editor, and not just an AVID film-editing technician like Jabez Olssen. Obviously and unfortunately, Peter Jackson thought he could serve as his own "editor," which meant that the films had no editor at all. The awful bloated results could indeed use a drastic cutting down to something like a single, two-and-a-half hour movie, focused on the character Bilbo Baggins ... you know ... The Hobbit.

Anybody know of a good film editor who might have a few days to spare cleaning up this mess?

__________________
"If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." -- Tweedledee

I think I read a few months ago about someone putting together their own 'Fan Edit' of PJ's "Hobbit" which went for about four hours. I think it used handycam footage recorded in a cinema of the final film (at least before the home video release). I won't link to it because it's got its own link to a naughty torrenting service but it calls itself "The Hobbit: The Tolkien Edit" and cuts Dol Guldur, Tauriel, the love story, almost all of Legolas, most of Azog, lots of the action, the 'Old Bilbo' sequences etc apparently.

Then again apparently it also cuts the "That's what Bilbo Baggins hates" song from the beginning which is a shame, not much of a 'Tolkien edit' decision there! I would have had more songs if I'd had my way.

What a shame about these films. What a wasted opportunity.

__________________
"Since the evening of that day we have journeyed from the shadow of Tol Brandir."
"On foot?" cried Éomer.

We speculated on how much shorter (and bearable) the film would be if all the scenes where people moodily stare at each other had at least several seconds shaved from them or were all eliminated altogether.

We also noted that even the opening credits dragged on and on in this movie.

My Mom also found it hilarious that The Battle of Five Armies title card did not appear until after Smaug was killed...further emphasizing the point that his death should have been in the second movie.

The film was just as ghastly as I remembered. I'm going to watch Red Cliff tonight to wash the bad taste out of my mouth with a proper epic war film.

All I feel a need to say is this: The previous trilogy was very flawed, but there was much in it I enjoyed too. I might even say that some of the things I enjoyed were its flaws. Anyway, -it stuck with me-. I bought the DVDs, and I watched them or parts of them many times, sometimes cringing, sometimes impressed, every once in a while moved by a kind of love. To this day, I still think about those movies a lot.

I finally watched The Battle of the Five Armies about a month ago, and I don't believe I've spent even a moment since then reflecting on it until now. I find I can hardly remember anything about it--or its predecessors--at all.

__________________From without the World, though all things may be forethought in music or foreshown in vision from afar, to those who enter verily into Eä each in its time shall be met at unawares as something new and unforetold.

I finally watched The Battle of the Five Armies about a month ago, and I don't believe I've spent even a moment since then reflecting on it until now. I find I can hardly remember anything about it--or its predecessors--at all.

You somehow managed to forget, "I could have anything down my trousers." Lucky you.

You somehow managed to forget, "I could have anything down my trousers." Lucky you.

Nope, nuh-uh; didn't happen.

__________________From without the World, though all things may be forethought in music or foreshown in vision from afar, to those who enter verily into Eä each in its time shall be met at unawares as something new and unforetold.

All I can say is that, after browsing thogh the comments on TORN and their demented fanboy proclamations of love, bedazzlement and slavish worship for these horrid films, my hope for the future of the human race is even more minuscule than it was before.

__________________It is good to be both loved and feared; but if one cannot be both, it is better to be feared than loved" --Machiavelli

The Cinema Sins video for the third Hobbit came out. This is the closest I came, and will probably ever come, to watching that film. Geez, I didn't realize the ghost Ringwraiths, Galadriel, and the Azog-under-ice scenes were that ridiculous!

__________________
- These taxes, they are like sacrifices to tribal gods?
- Well, roughly speaking, but paying taxes is more painful.

The Cinema Sins video for the third Hobbit came out. This is the closest I came, and will probably ever come, to watching that film. Geez, I didn't realize the ghost Ringwraiths, Galadriel, and the Azog-under-ice scenes were that ridiculous!

At 2:50 in the video they call something racist when it is actually sexist.

In many ways, I feel my issue with the movie - and the prequels in general - comes from how Jackson regressed the Orcs and Goblins.
Tolkien was no fool. He knew that he needed a competent adversary to build the drama - and so the Goblins and Orcs within The Hobbit always seemed very competent to me, indicative of a wider civilization, capable of negotation and reason, which made them all the more dangerous to our heroes.

I do not see the Orcs in Tolkien's story as being evil for the sake of evil. Bolg is attempting to avenge his father, and I think that's a wonderful motivation. We could have had more of him growing as a commander, seeing his genuine hurt and why it was so important to get his revenge.

It would have hammered home the dual nature of Thorin, too. As both hero and plunderer. And been more faithful to the book, which almost seems to me to be reminiscent of morality plays - with a heroic King eventually being undone at the height of his triumph by his own hubris, whereas the humble Hobbit is graced with the right to go back home and enjoy the fruits of peace.

There was simply so much more they could have done, but I fear that Jackson, whilst viewing his insertions as "padding out a children's story", actually underestimated the hidden depths of Tolkien's story.

I take solace in the fact that one day it will probably be made again, and hope they have better luck the next time around!

__________________
Remember, stranger, passing by: As you are now, so once was I. As I am now, so you shall be. Prepare thyself to follow me.

Aaron, I enjoyed your views on Peter Jackson's film adaptation of The Hobbit. I agreed with some and disagreed with others. In terms of 'how Jackson regressed the Orcs and Goblins':

Tolkien was no fool. He knew that he needed a competent adversary to build the drama - and so the Goblins and Orcs within The Hobbit always seemed very competent to me, indicative of a wider civilization, capable of negotiation and reason, which made them all the more dangerous to our heroes.

I do not see the Orcs in Tolkien's story as being evil for the sake of evil. Bolg is attempting to avenge his father, and I think that's a wonderful motivation. We could have had more of him growing as a commander, seeing his genuine hurt and why it was so important to get his revenge.

I agree completely with you here. Tolkien was clear at the start that while goblins made no beautiful things, they made many clever ones, and suspected that they designed later weaponry.

In the book, they are clearly a threat. Despite the killing of the Great Goblin and others by Gandalf, they were able to quickly reorganise themselves, so as to chase after him, Bilbo and the dwarves. It's clear that the latter needed to get out of the Mountains quickly to survive.

Even after that happened, the goblins and their warg allies trapped the fifteen, who were clearly going to be killed (even Gandalf), before being rescued by the eagles. Later still, the goblins plotted to try and grab the treasure in the Lonely Mountain, after hearing of Smaug's death, not to mention avenging the death of the Great Goblin. Also, Bolg wanted to avenge his father's death at the hands of Thorin's cousin, Dain.

But what did the films give us? Azog, who was already dead. It would have been very simple to have had Bolg instead, who was at least in the book, and who had a comprehensible motive for revenge against the dwarves. 'Hello, my name is Bolg, son of Azog. Your cousin killed my father. Prepare to die'.

It would have hammered home the dual nature of Thorin, too. As both hero and plunderer. And been more faithful to the book, which almost seems to me to be reminiscent of morality plays - with a heroic King eventually being undone at the height of his triumph by his own hubris, whereas the humble Hobbit is graced with the right to go back home and enjoy the fruits of peace.

I disagree with you here. Thorin and the dwarves are presented for a long time as more merchants than warriors. It's only later, and increasingly after Thorin proudly proclaimed his identity to the Lake-men, that their warrior side became particularly evident, although to be fair to Tolkien, he never let the readers forget it.

You're right about Thorin's hubris; but it was, I think, more complicated than it first looks. Tolkien wove a complex web of law and morality within which Thorin and the other characters operated.

Yes, Thorin was affected by the dragon sickness. But also, we saw some Lake-men unfairly claiming that the dwarves deliberately stirred up Smaug against them. For Thorin and his people, who suffered at that dragon's hands, this must have been seen by them as a dreadful insult. Also, the treasure, leaving aside Bard's personal and hereditary claim to a share, and the Lake-men's right to compensation for help already given, was the property of the dwarves, not Smaug; so the Lake-men could claim no legal right to any compensation.

This left the issue of their moral claim, which would also be politically expedient for Thorin to recognise, to ensure that the newly restored kingdom had good relations with its neighbours. But then Bard, also affected by the dragon sickness, insulted Thorin through his messenger, referring to him as 'calling himself' king, in other words being a so-called (i.e. illegitimate) king, provoking Thorin to attack the messenger, an assault on an ambassador being generally regarded as unacceptable behaviour.

In short, Tolkien portrayed Thorin as being in the wrong, in refusing to admit the moral claim of the Lake-people. However, he showed that monarch acting the way he did due to two provocations, first he and his people being blamed for deliberately stirring up Smaug against the Lake; and second, his royal title being treated as illegitimate. How would one expect a monarch and people to so react, having recently taken back what was rightfully theirs?

There was simply so much more they could have done, but I fear that Jackson, whilst viewing his insertions as "padding out a children's story", actually underestimated the hidden depths of Tolkien's story.

This issue of law and morality I already mentioned is, I believe, a particular example of such 'hidden depths'.

I take solace in the fact that one day it will probably be made again, and hope they have better luck the next time around!

I just received an email from my local cinema chain here in Sydney (of which I used to be a member) promoting a competition to win tickets to see "The Hobbit Trilogy Extended Edition".

Putting aside that such an experience is probably also something they do to detainees in Guantanamo Bay, it just made me think that what would be most interesting would be if someone would host a live reading of the book at the same time and to see if a complete cover to cover reading of the book would be finished before it was possible to watch all three extended editions back to back.

I'd say there'd be fairly even odds.

A quick calculation suggests that all three extended editions back to back would be about 8 hours and 50 minutes, while Rob Inglis' reading is 11 hours 8 minutes. So maybe a speedy read.

This site, however, suggests that a silent reading of the book is definitely faster than watching the non-extended editions, although this was approximating the length of the third film.

__________________
"Since the evening of that day we have journeyed from the shadow of Tol Brandir."
"On foot?" cried Éomer.